Collection of this group's data for a LLM-powered weekly report

abompard commented

2026-09-10 14:08:11 +00:00

Hi folks,

I'm generating a weekly report of activity in the Fedora project centered on teams and SIGs, it's called This Week in Fedora. This generation uses an LLM. The goal is to make it easier to catch up with everything that's going on in the project, and to give visibility to each group's work and requests for help or testing. I think that from a newcomer's point of view, having an insight on what a group is working on at a point in time is helpful to decide whether it's interesting and worth contributing to.
I'm collecting activity from:

discourse posts with the #risc-v-sig tag
this tracker
meetings in Matrix meeting channels

In the latest version, I've added the possiblity to gather messages exchanged in Matrix channels. The #riscv channel is public and its history is available to new members, but quite a few people in multiple Matrix channels were unhappy about the LLM collecting this info, for various reasons.
I would like to know whether this group is OK with my program collecting and submitting info to an LLM from the following sources:

discourse posts and meetings
the tracker
the matrix channel

I would like to make the case for source 3 (the Matrix channel) because I think it's less obvious: knowing the "tone" of a conversation and the currently discussed subjects before joining is very important to help contribute to it. It's like when you're added to an empty group chat and you don't know how to start. That's why we show history to new channel members, and this would be the same idea at a higher level. Plus there's actual work going on in there for a lot of groups.
That said, I recognize that the form of the tool influences its use, chat messages are usually less thought-through than emails or forum posts, and members could be indimidated that something they write there and regret end up in a visible summary (the program respects message edits, but anyway).
Since my goal is to foster participation, the one thing I don't want to do is to hinder it in another way.

I know I've asked this in the chat 2 days ago but someone in another room noted that people can easily miss Matrix messages, which it true.

Please decide which collected sources, if any, you are OK with (and if you work in other places that you would like to have collected, of course (I can do RSS feeds!)). If the group is OK with Matrix channel collection but some individuals aren't, I can also exclude certain Matrix usernames from collection throughout the Matrix channels that are not meetings.

I'm happy to answer questions if you have any. Thanks!

Hi folks, I'm generating a weekly report of activity in the Fedora project centered on teams and SIGs, it's called [This Week in Fedora](https://abompard.fedorapeople.org/twif/). This generation uses an LLM. The goal is to make it easier to catch up with everything that's going on in the project, and to give visibility to each group's work and requests for help or testing. I think that from a newcomer's point of view, having an insight on what a group is working on at a point in time is helpful to decide whether it's interesting and worth contributing to. I'm collecting activity from: - discourse posts with the `#risc-v-sig` tag - this tracker - meetings in Matrix meeting channels In the latest version, I've added the possiblity to gather messages exchanged in Matrix channels. The `#riscv` channel is public and its history is available to new members, but quite a few people in multiple Matrix channels were unhappy about the LLM collecting this info, for various reasons. I would like to know whether this group is OK with my program collecting and submitting info to an LLM from the following sources: 1. discourse posts and meetings 2. the tracker 3. the matrix channel I would like to make the case for source 3 (the Matrix channel) because I think it's less obvious: knowing the "tone" of a conversation and the currently discussed subjects before joining is very important to help contribute to it. It's like when you're added to an empty group chat and you don't know how to start. That's why we show history to new channel members, and this would be the same idea at a higher level. Plus there's actual work going on in there for a lot of groups. That said, I recognize that the form of the tool influences its use, chat messages are usually less thought-through than emails or forum posts, and members could be indimidated that something they write there and regret end up in a visible summary (the program respects message edits, but anyway). Since my goal is to foster participation, the one thing I don't want to do is to hinder it in another way. I know I've asked this in the chat 2 days ago but someone in another room noted that people can easily miss Matrix messages, which it true. Please decide which collected sources, if any, you are OK with (and if you work in other places that you would like to have collected, of course (I can do RSS feeds!)). If the group is OK with Matrix channel collection but some individuals aren't, I can also exclude certain Matrix usernames from collection throughout the Matrix channels that are not meetings. I'm happy to answer questions if you have any. Thanks!

👍 1

kashyapc commented

2026-09-15 21:32:59 +00:00

Owner

Hi,

I'm not a fan of having Matrix logs getting collected by an LLM, even though I know people can download the archives and do the same themselves. It is a bit more informal and water-cooler style setup. Let's leave it like that.

Discourse, meeting logs, and tracker are fine.

Hi, I'm not a fan of having Matrix logs getting collected by an LLM, even though I know people can download the archives and do the same themselves. It is a bit more informal and water-cooler style setup. Let's leave it like that. Discourse, meeting logs, and tracker are fine.

abompard commented

2026-09-16 07:50:49 +00:00

Author

Noted, thanks!

abompard closed this issue

2026-09-16 07:50:49 +00:00

kashyapc commented

2026-09-21 20:41:06 +00:00

Owner

@abompard Hey, sorry to bother you.

I didn't realize you'll close this ticket just on my opinion. After some discussion on the Matrix channel with others, I think it is better if there's some summary of the lively discussion on the channel. @jmontleon and @davidlt convinced me with good reasoning. My objection was not strongly held. Anyway these logs are all public.

My objection is "waived".

@abompard Hey, sorry to bother you. I didn't realize you'll close this ticket just on my opinion. After some discussion on the Matrix channel with others, I think it is better if there's some summary of the lively discussion on the channel. @jmontleon and @davidlt convinced me with good reasoning. My objection was not strongly held. Anyway these logs are all public. My objection is "waived".

👍 2

kashyapc reopened this issue

2026-09-21 20:41:06 +00:00